This forum is absolutely not the right venue for this discussion, though. I imagine anyone reading these last couple of posts must be scratching their head...

You got that right. I know you guys can get cool stuff done so please get back to coding, both of you, and release the code whenever you feel you're ready._________________Check out the gallery, our DeleD Wiki and Youtube videos!

I have made it very clear multiple times that I don't think anything I have done is really any kind of coding achievement, and that the changes themselves are only significant relative to the functionality that already existed in the application. Indeed, I think there are a lot of people out there who could have easily done what I've done. (But no one has, for whatever reason.)

That has nothing to do with license.
My message was that the code is under GNU GPL and you must follow its rules, just like everybody else must.

My prediction is that admin Jeroen must take a stance on licensing issues at some time in future. Let's see ...

My prediction is that admin Jeroen must take a stance on licensing issues at some time in future. Let's see ...

My opinion is as follows: everybody can take the sources and play with it, including releasing screenshots etc. Whenever an .EXE is released, the adjusted sourcecode must be provided as well. As long as no .EXE is released, sourcecode doesn't have to be released either. Also, there is no timelimit on how long somebody can play with the sources without releasing an EXE and sourcecode.

So: Akira13 and anybody else can just play with the current sources and show screenshots etc, without releasing sourcecode, for as long as he wants. If/when an EXE is released, sourcecode needs to be provided.

Of course, it would be nice to see adjusted sourcecode some time soon, because that's what we programmers like after all. But that's up to the programmer to decide._________________Check out the gallery, our DeleD Wiki and Youtube videos!

And since you've now explicitly said that, I definitely won't upload any builds without the accompanying code. Had you said, "meh, I don't really care", I might have released some test builds before I uploaded the code. My point (for Juha, if he's still around) was just that I think the direct "wishes" of an original author of any given piece of software always overrule the specifics of any given license.

My point (for Juha, if he's still around) was just that I think the direct "wishes" of an original author of any given piece of software always overrule the specifics of any given license.

Sorry but that is just not true. I wonder why you misunderstood things so badly.
DeleD authors expressed their wishes by publishing their code under GNU GPL. They could have used any other license if they wanted. They could even create their own "DeleD License" which would allow anybody to turn the code into closed source.
They can still change their mind and license if they feel so, but even then the current forks remain under GNU GPL.

Akira, maybe you confuse GNU GPL with Shareware license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
Please study the different licenses.
GPL is rolled around 4 freedoms:
0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies.
3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements.

It only takes away one freedom, a freedom to turn the code into closed source by delivering only binaries, but in exchange it gives you many freedoms.

As some may know, the license issues have been a sensitive topic around Lazarus project, although for a very opposite reason than here now.
There is a hate-blogger who wanted to "help" Lazarus project by killing all its 2 forks. He mixed facts and pure lies in a dexterous way and got many followers. It escalated like an avalance.
Somebody figured the Lazarus core developers sponsor the hate-blogs and want to kill their competition. I also got hate-mail for it.
Finally a stance for the issue was published and the situation calmed. Lots of bad blood was created though. One fork survived but there is no communication any more with Lazarus project.

GNU GPL is so idealistic that it scares me. Like most idealistic doctrines, it will be used for some very opposite purposes. It already happened in the above episode. People were pulling arbitrary requirements from their hats to attack a project which had copied and modified GPL code. And yes, they publish their sources!

Now with Akira we see another reaction for an idealistic license. It is a tree-hugger hippie license, nothing to be taken seriously.
This is the first time I see it actually. Usually people are worried they may violate the license accidentally and ask about details. The essential rule about publishing the sources has been clear to everybody ... until now.

Anyway, I recommend we all respect the license rules. Nothing more, nothing less.